'We did not abdicate our role'

Interview with Chakra Prasad Banstola, Foreign Minister.

Once a Nepali Congress young turk, Foreign Minister Chakra Prasad Banstola has matured into a highly respected Minister. He has stayed out of the bitter factionalism in the ruling Nepali Congress, but what he may have lost in terms of clout within the party he has made up for in terms of the high regard he enjoys within the Foreign Ministry and the diplomatic circle. Surprisingly for a man who heads the Foreign Ministry, Banstola is frank and even 'excitable' in this interview to Rita Manchanda at his home in the ministerial complex on his "off day". The government, he defensively insists, did not abdicate its responsibility during the crisis, but he acknowledges that the crisis exposed a fundamental gap between the Palace with its walls of privilege intact (though not its power) and the institutions of a multi-party polity, an anomaly which makes for the Palace to be beyond accountability and by implication which made the tragedy possible. Denying that the Nepalese media was muzzled, he nonetheless defends the arrest of the editor of the newspaper Kantipur. Excerpts:

"Who is in charge?" is a question increasingly being asked, especially when journalists are repeatedly told that the order comes from mathi. Who is this higher authority - the elected government or the Palace? Many people in Kathmandu say the elected government has abdicated its responsibility.

I think that's a sweeping judgment. To say that the government has abdicated its responsibility is uncalled for - the government is functioning but the times and issues have not been normal, easy, day-to-day or mundane. So that may have given the impression that the government is not seen everywhere.

More specifically, take the setting up of the Committee to Probe the Royal Massacre. Should the elected government not have taken the initiative?

What do you mean by 'should have'? You have to go according to the law, according to statutory provisions, according to the Constitution.

Does the Constitution not provide for King in Parliament?

You can't make a judgment by just reading the Constitution. Had there been a provision for the government to take action in this area, it would have moved by itself. But there is no such provision. (The situation we were faced with was that) for the first time in Nepal's history we found the people so agitated and we realised that we had to place the facts before the public. There was no provision within the framework of the Constitution, that is, for the government, Parliament or the courts, to look into incidents involving the Palace or the royalty. The only possibility was a slim provision under the succession law by which the King could appoint a probe. So the Prime Minister made a suggestion to His Majesty to appoint a committee.

The Prime Minister?

Yes. We did not abdicate our role but were pro-active. The people wanted it. But there was a gap, a legal gap, and we bridged it.

There were reports that the Prime Minister, on arriving post-haste at the Narayanhiti Palace on June 1, was barred entry. Even at the Military Hospital he was kept outside, waiting?

Let me answer this in a different way. As I said, there is no constitutional provision or law. We are trying to evolve a practice in response to the changing situation, to build a bridge between the people's needs and expectations and the 'gap' in the statutory legal provisions. In this context, after the report was made public, the Cabinet met Friday night and decided to appoint a committee under the Chief Secretary to look into the judicial and administrative lapses. Your gap and my evolutionary practice can be bridged.

Looking back, do you think it was a mistake on the part of the Nepali media, especially the audio-visual media, to have gone into deep mourning, leaving the field to selective foreign media and rumours?

Where was the Nepali press obstructed? I agree, instead of giving them mourning programmes if we had given the other side of the picture it would have been more helpful. We did not stop programming. It was not a wise decision. It's one of those 'gaps' we talked about. But we didn't obstruct the media.

You arrested the Editor of Kantipur and two of his managerial colleagues? Whose decision was it?

Of course it was the decision of the government, not of the Palace. If somebody makes a very irresponsible statement, what should we be doing?

In hindsight, was it a bad decision?

No. As a government we have to look at it from an administrative angle. We have to see it from the context of our national security. Our priority was to ensure a smooth transition. We could not have shooting and killing in the streets for that. We had to take an 'unpopular' decision. If we had not done that, you would have pointed a finger at us (for inaction). The succession has been peaceful, and how do you think that happened? Do you think it happened as the media reports say - because the government abdicated? I accept that even within my own party there was a difference of opinion on the arrests. They (some members) were opposed because they felt it was inappropriate to do this when the international media were here. And sure enough, we had to face bad publicity. Our action was completely legal and we have not behaved in a biased manner - we didn't pull strings to keep them in.

Do you think that by arresting the editor of Kantipur and his colleagues you were able to contain a fallout that could have had national security consequences?

Kantipur is a leading daily and we felt that others would follow Kantipur's lead.

But the other papers did carry Maoist supremo Comrade Prachanda's statements?

We were monitoring the situation. In the existing vacuum we felt that certain elements could create a problem. On the one side you accuse us of not acting and on the other of acting. Aren't you being self-contradictory?

What was the extent of the street-level infiltration of the Maoists? Star TV announced on Friday that "the Maoists are coming?"

They are carrying all sorts of news. During the street action we arrested around 450 people, of whom 200 were found to be Maoists. We watched everybody with a shaven head and looked for people who came from Rukum (a Maoist stronghold) district to Kathmandu for reasons other than work or visits to relatives. As a government you have to take unpopular decisions, which if we hadn't taken may have produced an unwarranted situation.

There has been some concern that the new succession could have an adverse impact on India-Nepal relations, and more critically democracy in Nepal, especially since King Gyanendra is said to be cast in the mould of his father King Mahendra who in 1960 cast out democracy and brought back absolute monarchy.

Whatever role model you compare King Gyanendra with is unjustified because such a comparison made earlier was between him with a King. But now he is himself in the shoes of a ruling monarch. Your comparison has to start from the day he took over. The manner in which he has conducted himself since then does not encourage doubts whether constitutionality will be maintained.